The Burke Habit

What an absolutely marvelous, inspiring read. Please tell me, is this the last of a series on American Conservatism, or the last from Mr. Hart? I tried to do a search, but every link simply brought me back to today's page. Could the rest of this series be put in one, easy to access, place? Please?

Editor's Comment:
You can find an archive of the entire series here.

Jeffrey Hart's brilliant analysis of the conservative mind is a hard read, but well worth careful examination. His pessimism toward utopia and the lion and the lamb getting together is discouraging. He may overreach when he asserts what was in the mind of the Prophet Isaiah. This position sees brutes prevailing over angels. Does he feel that war is inevitable? Mr. Hart's views on constitutional government and consensus over time is a healthy reminder to beware of today's poll-driven culture.

Similarly, the need for intellectual gravitas over emotionalism augers poorly for the future of religion. It will take time for people to get used to the idea of utopia as a distant and destructive image, but as part of the constellation of Conservative ideas it is a worthy consideration.

"To put it flatly, this is not going to happen. Too many powerful social forces are aligned against it, and it is therefore a utopian notion."

Utterly wrong. To put it flatly, legalized abortion is the moral equivalent of slavery. In the words of M.L. King, it reduces the I-thou relationship to an I-it relationship, and reduces persons to things. As such it must be utterly destroyed for that very reason. This may not be a conservative viewpoint; then again, as regards the full humanity of the black man, Lincoln was no conservative (for his time) either. One need not be a good German in the face of genocide just because it is "conservative" to be so. Those who believe in the value of life cease to be "conservative" if "conservatism" means naked cooperation with evil.

And not only is it going to happen, it is going to happen within our lifetimes. Thanks be to Christ.

Joining OpinionJournal's recent litany advising against correction of Roe v. Wade, Mr. Hart's disingenuous attempt to appeal to some conservatives on the grounds that Roe offered a "libertarian" solution to abortion is--at best--an insult to anyone who opposes abortion on firm moral and intellectual ground.

Throughout the rise of what we now call Western Civilization, acts that resulted in abortion have rightly been considered murderous acts. Only American arrogance keeps us from realizing that abortion is nothing more than eugenics for the consumer class.

Terrific! Well written and factual about a very complex problem. Would it possibly go further and tell us how to find and elect leaders with this knowledge in a U.S.A. which has left the concept of republic and moved towards that of democracy?

My word, talk about "ghosts of conservatives past." Mr. Hart obviously believes American conservatism is rooted in anachronisms. Certainly conservative thinking has a history, but like many of its current practitioners, it has, at least in America, been "born again." And is not nearly as unsettled or unoriginal as Mr. Hart suggests. The noble defense of traditional values is not invulnerable to evolving trends or technologies if they be efficacious. "What works," has always been the battle cry of reason and reason is what contemporary American conservatism is all about.

Conservatives cannot and will not be put in a mold while America's enemies and opponents are mobile in their efforts to harm the nearest thing to a utopia man has thus far assembled. Perhaps this "assessment" as the author calls it, should more aptly be titled, "American Conservatism sans Buckely, Reagan and Limbaugh" or "Why The World Is Really Flat."

Man, if I had a nickel for every "progressive" who "explains" the Right as if he or she were some anthropologist standing over squatting apes. Well, never mind. Suffice it to say, "The American Conservative Mind" is more often and much better explained by the "apes" who actually carry it in their skulls while they politely grin at the clueless academic in their midst.

Mr. Hart's description of those of us who believe that the Declaration of Independence should be read as our Founders intended as "Jacobinical" (i.e., far leftist) is offensive beyond measure.

Western thinkers have understood that life begins at its earliest recognizable point (which, thanks to modern science is now known as "conception") since ancient times. With respect to the unborn, The Declaration, which declares that we are all endowed by our Creator with the right to life, merely confirms the obvious.

The idea of protecting innocent life from conception to natural death is not "utopian." Rather, it is prerequisite for a civilized society. The utilitarian ethic that runs through "the reality of the American social process" that does not respect the right to life is what is Jacobinical, and frightening.

Conservatism for some has become synonymous with prudish, backwards, stuck-in-the-mud ignorance while the term "liberal" is reserved for the enlightened. But the opposite is true. It is exciting to think of the freedom evident in the "constellation of ideas" that make up the Conservative mind, unfettered except for the constraints necessary for civilized society, able to process the thoughts of Professor Hart for example and free to agree or disagree, while staying true to common principles that unite us. Conservatism has become progressive, forward looking and open to new solutions grounded in reality while liberals cling to the past and some failed notion of a utopian future, an intellectual quagmire.

The concept of perfection is a human-invented abstraction that varies over time and among humans. How, then, could perfection be defined for use as a goal for whole populations? There is no need, in any event, since Darwin already did in "On the Origin of Species" (1859), which states that it is adaptation to one's environment, long enough to guarantee the viability of our descendants. All else are human-invented concepts used by the few to control the many, which is nonadaptive.